March 18, 2012

Union nastiness turns on the Democrats who opposed the big iron mine (assuming the return label reflects to the source of the shit).

Here's some info on the mine. Here's a letter to the editor of a Manitowoc newspaper:

Why do the private-sector unions support the Democrats? Not one Senate Democrat will vote for good-paying, union-related mining jobs in Wisconsin.
Most of these jobs just happen to be in Democratic Senate districts. They're afraid the water and environment will be damaged, but don't seem to mind letting Milwaukee (Democratic District) pump raw sewage a few times a year into Lake Michigan when it rains too much.

Could it be Democrats and union bosses only want public-sector union jobs, want Indian tribes to have the only businesses in Northern Wisconsin, don't want us to lose our top-10 ranking as most restrictive areas in the world for mining and don't like private-sector union jobs that can't be moved to China?

It's because Gov. Scott Walker wants the mining bill. Thank you, union bosses, for fighting for these good-paying union mining jobs. I heard five trade unions backing the mining bill in Madison March 6, but didn't see any media coverage. I must have missed the news that day.

What a waste of my union dues. How stupid of me. My union dues aren't used for any political reasons. I'd go to the library to get some information on this, but I need a photo ID to get a library card. Wait, I'll just Google it.

Raymond Fanslau

Two Rivers

(Two Rivers and Manitowoc are about 90 miles north of Milwaukee on the shore of Lake Michigan.)

I often think that if our country were smaller, say the size of Germany, these thugs would have started a revolution long ago. But if people in NYC or WI or L.A. go nuts and riot, the ripple effect is quite small.

Drip, drip, drip. More and more people are waking up to the reality that unions are just, as Limbaugh says, money laundering ops for Dem campaigns.

How on earth do you conclude this from this post? The unions want the mine, the democrats in the legislature have blocked the easing of regulations that the mine owners apparently want before they will commit to the mine.

It's always the Republican's fault because Democrats never have unreasonable demands. They're always willing to compromise. But we know that "compromise" means Republicans do it the Democrat way.

OTOH, just drum up some "reasonable" noise about the environment, figure out at what point the private company *can't* agree to because the mines would become unprofitable, and then blame it on someone else. Because the private sector only says no, on account of being mean. Economics are mere matters of opinion and desire.

On the other hand, garage and purple know the whole story so they can explain just what trivial political things the company execs think are more important than their obvious profits to be had so they're willing to not have the mines, which *would* be profitable, just to stick it to the Democrats.

When did I ever claim to "know the whole story" about the proposed mining law?

Seriously, WTF is THAT about? Are you confusing me with someone else, or are ya just painting moi with a broad brush based on one or three opinions you know about me?

One is understandable and totally excusable, while the other explanation shows that you ain't much different than whoever it was that mailed that package to Sen. Taylor...ya'll are just stirring up shit when you could be having an honest discussion.

It's always the Republican's fault because Democrats never have unreasonable demands.

As a starting point, perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the existing law that requires changing just to get 700 jobs (and some unsupported assertion that you saw on the web that Wisconsin has a "top-10 ranking as most restrictive areas in the world for mining" doesn't count unless you can provide some basis for this.)

Freder Frederson said...Drip, drip, drip. More and more people are waking up to the reality that unions are just, as Limbaugh says, money laundering ops for Dem campaigns.

How on earth do you conclude this from this post? The unions want the mine, the democrats in the legislature have blocked the easing of regulations that the mine owners apparently want before they will commit to the mine.

3/18/12 1:03 PM

Democrats shit on one of their core constituencies to placate another. With them, its all shit all of the time.

garage... How can the Democrats have voted against something not allowed to go to vote?

"Bipartisan" is one of those code words that simply means a single person of the other party signed to it. What was the objection to the original? What was the solution of the other version? And if the end result that is *desired* is no mines at all, does the second version actually work to open the mines? Or does it present a situation where the trouble demanded by government outweighs the possible profit, so that companies will say no... at which point the Democrats will have a win-win... no mines, and they can blame corporations?

garage... How can the Democrats have voted against something not allowed to go to vote?

The bill the mining company wrote was defeated in the senate because one Republican voted against it.

A bipartisan bill that would have passed and allowed the mine to go forward was not allowed to be voted on.

My guess is it wasn't allowed to be voted on because the mining company didn't want to sign off on liability for cleanup. And Republicans would rather play blame game. And Althouse is dutifully doing her part.

The bill the mining company wrote was defeated in the senate because one Republican voted against it.

A bipartisan bill that would have passed and allowed the mine to go forward was not allowed to be voted on.

Both those statements are both ridiculously false.

Not one Democrat voted for the mining bill in either house of the legislature. The fact that it "failed" because a Republican voted against it is parsing words. If Tim Carpenter had actually kept his word, or Bob Jauch actually had the balls to vote for jobs in his district instead of worrying about whether the bill would help Scott Walker or not, it would have passed.

Second, the "bipartisan" bill between Jauch and Schultz would NOT HAVE PASSED, either. Not all Democrats were on board with that bill. It was just a front put on by Jauch and Schultz help ease criticism from Jauch's district, who has wanted this mine from the start. Its the dirty little secret that nobody in the media wants to report.

Garage, a little lesson on the private sector and how it works: when a private company wants to invest $1.5 BILLION into your state and create thousands of jobs in exchange for changing certain laws to make it easier, any business is going to want to write a good portion of the bill.

Not everybody can have a desk job or work for the government. Some jobs are messy. Some jobs arent pretty. But they need to be done.

Its simply astounding...we are literally the only country in the industrialized world to not use the natural resources it has to our benefit.

Democrats love blue collar jobs in the abstract - Hey, wasn't it great back in the day, when Fred Flintstone could support Wilma and Pebbles on a quarryman's salary? But when the rubber meets the road and legislation has to be voted on, Dems will support environmental considerations (no matter how trivial) over jobs every time.

Gotta keep Robert Redford and the Sierra Club happy, ya know. Those real-life Fred Flintstones? Give 'em a few more weeks of unemployment compensation. They should be grateful for that.

Not one Democrat voted for the mining bill in either house of the legislature. The fact that it "failed" because a Republican voted against it is parsing words.

Both statements are 100% provable fact. How do I know? Because one Democrat co-authored the bipartsian bill! And they only needed one Democrat for a bill to pass. DUH. When your state leads the nation in job losses, and you're facing a recall, I guess you need to someone to blame other than yourself.

"When your state leads the nation in job losses, and you're facing a recall, I guess you need to someone to blame other than yourself."

Pot and kettle.

But after all, you're glad that they're not opening that mine.

So are the other Democrats complaining that it's the Republicans fault, glad that they're not opening that mine.

But we're supposed to believe in good-faith, that people opposed to the mine had a bill that would have been sure to have it open and productive, and that people in favor of the mine blocked it.

So the spectacle!

Democrats working faithfully for what they don't want to happen.

Republicans working cynically against what they want to happen, because they'd rather blame Democrats on account of they aren't smart enough to take credit for something passed while they have the majority.

And the people who got what they *wanted* are the ones who have the benefit of the doubt?

Both statements are 100% provable fact. How do I know? Because one Democrat co-authored the bipartsian bill! And they only needed one Democrat for a bill to pass. DUH. When your state leads the nation in job losses, and you're facing a recall, I guess you need to someone to blame other than yourself.

If you think all Republicans would have voted for the Schultz/Jauch "compromise", you are crazy. Which is why the bill would have never passed. The mining company itself said the Schultz/Jauch bill was actually a worse law than the law already on the books.

It also would have not passed the assembly, either.

This idea that it would have passed because one Democrat "co-authored" it is typical liberal-speak.

Nothing stopped Jauch or Schultz to offer amendments to the bill, but neither did. Why? Because neither Jauch or Schultz "wrote" this bill with the intention of even proposing it, much less it passing. As I said, it was simply made up to provide cover to Jauch in his district. I explained in a previous post a while back...I live in Schultz's district, just a few miles from his hometown, and know people close to him. This bill was never intended to be introduced...it was just media fodder in an effort to deflect blame.

Keep believing that this mining bill failure is all on Walker when thousands of private sector people vote for Walker at the ballot box because of this mess. And keep believing that this mining bill failure is all on Walker when Jauch is voted out of office, which is now a near certainty.

If you think all Republicans would have voted for the Schultz/Jauch "compromise", you are crazy.

So Republicans would have voted against a bill that would allowed Gogebic to mine? What you're saying is Republicans are representing a mining company from Florida over it's own constituents. Which of course is true, not one Republican could name who authored the Fitzgerald bill.

Like I said, I'm glad this disaster was averted, glad the recalls from last summer allowed this, and I can't wait to see more of these mouth breathers tossed in June/November.

So Republicans would have voted against a bill that would allowed Gogebic to mine?

Are you really this much of a simpleton?

The law currently on the books doesnt "prevent" Gogebic from mining. Gogebic stated that they wanted current Wisconsin law changed before committing to mining here. Right now, Wisconsin has the toughest mining laws in the entire country, with regards to regulation and litigation.

What you're saying is Republicans are representing a mining company from Florida over it's own constituents. Which of course is true, not one Republican could name who authored the Fitzgerald bill.

Who gives a shit where the company is from? They were ready to commit the money. Companies like Caterpillar were ready to build the equipment. Its in the most impoverished area in the state. What was there not to like? Except for the fact that Walker is a Republican governor....

Like I said, I'm glad this disaster was averted, glad the recalls from last summer allowed this, and I can't wait to see more of these mouth breathers tossed in June/November.

Yet you will be the first to complain the highlight of job loss in this state.

Democrats love blue collar jobs in the abstract - Hey, wasn't it great back in the day, when Fred Flintstone could support Wilma and Pebbles on a quarryman's salary? But when the rubber meets the road and legislation has to be voted on, Dems will support environmental considerations (no matter how trivial) over jobs every time.

They will support the blue-collar jobs when its the government thats in charge and taxpayer money that is paying for it.

Like the "high-speed" train, for example. Garage just gone done preaching to me that "Republicans favored a Florida company over its constituents", but yet its OK that a company from Spain uses government money to build a train between Madison and Milwaukee.

Jason...As for the Cateillar jobs: The mining bill would not have been a job-creator in Milwaukee factories, and would have had only a small impact on sales tax collections and the state budget picture because of exemptions in state tax law, reports WisBusiness.com:

MILWAUKEE -- A proposed new iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin is unlikely to boost jobs at Milwaukee-area manufacturers Joy Global and Caterpillar, leading makers of massive blasting and hauling equipment...John Disharoon, vice president of industry relations for Caterpillar Global Mining, said any estimate of sales figures is purely speculative at this point. “Even after a permit is issued, it’s several years before any mine operations take place,” he said.

Caterpillar machinery for the proposed Wisconsin mine probably would not be made in Wisconsin, Disharoon said.

“Our Milwaukee-area facility makes mining equipment that is way too large,” he said. However, sales of Caterpillar products for the proposed Wisconsin mine would go through the company’s Wisconsin authorized dealer, Fabco, he said, and as such, would be subject to applicable Wisconsin sales tax.

The law currently on the books doesnt "prevent" Gogebic from mining. Gogebic stated that they wanted current Wisconsin law changed before committing to mining here.

And they were told no. It's their own damn fault if they didn't want to abide by our laws.

Schultz said not one Republican or rep from Gogebic ever approached him to exactly what was unacceptable in his bill. Part of me thinks this was all kabuki theater, the price of iron ore has dropped, and they never intended to build right now anyway. Hence the box of shit sent to a Democrat.

"Part of me thinks this was all kabuki theater, the price of iron ore has dropped, and they never intended to build right now anyway."

They certainly weren't going to start mining if they couldn't make money doing it. Just like no one in her right mind would start a company building windmills or solar panels if they couldn't be sure of massive federal subsidies, the mining company has to at least be confident of making a profit and not a loss.

"Make it easier to do business so it's worth our while to make those investments," is an entirely reasonable thing to ask.

As for not planning to start mining now... companies sometimes do that. Sarah Palin took the oil corporations to court in Alaska for holding leases they never intended to develop. Was this mining company going to get "dibs" for some amount of time that would prevent someone else from mining if they decided not to?

And have you ever considered the possibility that maybe your laws make it uneconomical to do business in Wisconsin? Whose fault would that be?

As I mentioned, nobody I know from Gogebic or it's supporters can identify exactly what laws made it unfeasible. Something like 83 million tons of rock needed be removed just to get at the ore. Much of that waste rock contains sulfides, when mixed with air and water create a toxic acid runoff. Nobody believes that runoff wouldn't have gotten into the watershed. They didn't want to be responsible for that runoff would be my guess as one of Gogebic's barriers. A good reason why not one sportsman's club was in favor of the bill proposed.

Why blame the Republicans if the *real* answer is that the ecological trade-off for making the mine economically viable was unacceptable

Because they voted for it anyway.

This was a 23 mile long, 1000 feet deep, open pit strip mine that would have virtually flattened the Penokee Range, containing world class trout streams and headwaters of the 76 mile long Bad River. This was not your grandfather's shaft mine.

But my answer stands... how do you blame Republicans for *not* passing it, when the truth is that Democrats didn't want it passed and are glad it's not passed? If the real answer is that the ecological trade-off of making the mine economically feasible was not acceptable, then just *say* so.

Just *say*, Democrats stopped this because it was *bad*.

What is the purpose of saying, this is all the dumb Republican's fault because they refused to vote on a bill that would have made the mine economically unfeasible?

Isn't voting *for* a bill that makes the mine not happen while pretending to allow it, the same thing as voting against the mine?

Why not just *tell* those people who think they might have gotten a job there, or sold groceries to someone who got a job there, what the priorities are? Granted, having it both ways would be nice, politically, but don't expect that other people believe the bull shit.

"3rd time: Nobody told Schultz or Jausch exactly what was in their bill they objected to. You're also saying their bill was economically unfeasible for Gogebic. What?"

I'm making an assumption on the basis of logic.

1. Republicans wanted to be able to point to the mine as a big win in the "jobs" column.

2. Republicans have the majority and governorship, so a bi-partisan bill that resulted in an open mine and jobs is a political win for them.

3. Therefore, there is no reason at all for Republicans to oppose a bipartisan compromise. To do so is completely irrational.

4. Unless the compromise would not result in an open mine.

5. If the compromise meant no open mine, it could not be either a real nor a political "win" for Republicans because it would mean zero jobs.

6. But a non-open mine, and a recorded vote of voting for the mine gives Democrats a win-win, politically. They satisfy their constituents who oppose mining, and mollify their blue-collar base, at no cost to themselves.

Democrats don't want the mine and they got what they wanted.

Republicans want the mine and didn't get what they wanted.

And you expect me to believe that *both* groups were actively working for the other group's goals?

The article Althouse links is, of course, not about the mine. It's about the politics surrounding the mine.

An article about the actual mine would be interesting. What are they mining? How is it done? How many jobs really? What kind of tax benefit to the state? What are the social benefits of the mine, beyond jobs and taxes? What are the environmental risks? Are there other similar mines? What is their experience? Etc. etc.

Of course such an article would require actual work. The journalist would have to understand science, business, government, economics well enough to ask the right questions.

But my answer stands... how do you blame Republicans for *not* passing it, when the truth is that Democrats didn't want it passed and are glad it's not passed? If the real answer is that the ecological trade-off of making the mine economically feasible was not acceptable, then just *say* so.

Can't do that. Apparently Jausch's consituents would rather have jobs than pristine trout streams, so it's necessary to maintain the fiction that he was all about enabling the mine, but the dumb mining company didn't understand the economics of iron mining as well Jausch did.

So to recap - The mine was a terrible idea, and the bastard Republicans suck for killing it.

"Minnesota and Michigan both recognize the difference between ferrous mining, which uses magnets and water in the mining and refining process, and sulfide mining, which uses chemicals. Both states have statutes that recognize that difference in how they regulate the permitting and oversight of ferrous mining. Wisconsin’s mining laws do not recognize the differences between ferrous and sulfide mining."

GM, I'm guessing when a mining company does exploratory work, they ultimately make an educated guess on the location/amount of material able to be mined profitably. I'm thinking they may secure MORE acreage than they think they need due to profit and expense calculations. I'd like to read an opinion from someone with knowledge/experience in ferrous mining.

Part of the reason the mining bill was defeated was "environmental concern", yet ferrous mining involves water and magnets. Non-ferrous mining has been done in the state, and has a higher pollution potential due to the formation of sulfuric acid, resulting in acid rock drainage (ARD) that may contaminate groundwater with metals.

From the WI Mining Assoc website regarding the Flambeau non-ferrous mine near Ladysmith:

"During its mining operation all of the surface area drainage and water pumped into the pit went into a treatment plant that successfully purified the water so it could be safely returned to the environment. Upon closure, to avoid ARD, the pit was backfilled with the waste rock that was originally stripped from the pit along with 30,000 tons of limestone and ground water level was re-established to cover the remaining sulfide minerals, thus preventing oxidation and ARD.

Land at the site was reclaimed and Wisconsin continues to monitor the area for ARD, with none found to date The Flambeau Mine was closed more 10 years ago and did not have any violations of its permits in construction, operation, closure and reclamation."

I think fear mongering was successfully used to defeat this project. And be honest, even ancient mines by indigineous peoples are eyesores. Take a trip to the Pipestone National Monument in SW MN some time and tell me the quarry is impact free.

@garage--I googled it. I found nothing about a 22-mile-long mine. There is, however, this, which reconciles the "22,000 acre" figure in your head with the numbers at Gail's link:

The company holds an option to lease the mineral rights on the entire deposit, but has indicated it would concentrate on determining whether permits could be obtained for approximately 4,500 acres of the 22,000-acre deposit.

Thanks Chip S for clearing that up, I was having trouble calling it a night because Politifact and GM's numbers seemed inconsistent.

The GTAC website lists Phase 1 as 4-5 miles, and from Politifact let's use the 1.5 mi width. A section (one square mile)=640acres, so 5 x 1.5=7.5 sq mi, x 640A = 4800 acres. GTAC anticipates a 35 year life on this site, up to 3000 construction jobs, then about 700 mining employees.

There are other inconsistent claims, like the water pollution. And according to an article in Huff Post Green (who knew??), "...The potential for pollution depends largely upon a mine's specific geology, and it's unclear exactly how Gogebic Taconite's mine might affect the area. Wisconsin environmental officials haven't studied the rock composition at the site and the company hasn't submitted any specific operational plans...".

With all the what if fears being propogated by the environmentalists and sucked up by libs, I just gotta wonder how any of them can feel safe driving a car (produced with, gasp, material made from iron ore and petroleum..)

gail said...GM, I'm guessing when a mining company does exploratory work, they ultimately make an educated guess on the location/amount of material able to be mined profitably. I'm thinking they may secure MORE acreage than they think they need due to profit and expense calculations. I'd like to read an opinion from someone with knowledge/experience in ferrous mining

What hard rock miners usually do is is send a drill team out to drill for core samples. They try to bracket the area they want to mine. Of course many times the terrain isn't suitable for drilling equipment.-think of the diamond bearing Kimberlite pipe in the NW Territories of Canada which was found UNDER a lake. So. yeah. They're extrapolating. The 4800 figure probably represents the material that is easiest to extract.

just about everything we own that makes modern life fun is in some way yanked from the earth.

"With all the what if fears being propogated by the environmentalists and sucked up by libs, I just gotta wonder how any of them can feel safe driving a car (produced with, gasp, material made from iron ore and petroleum..)"

I spend a lot of time in the outdoors, including the area in question (though it's been a little while since I've been in the Penokee's). Do I want them to mine that area? No. But I drive a car and benefit from a healthy economy. People need jobs. Once you've set environmental safeguards in place, there reaches a point where further opposition is just selfishness. And in the particular case of this mine, I strongly suspect opposition is just as much about damaging Walker ("Where are the jobs?") than anything else.